Sad thing is, I think THAT is why orcas should be nerfed. Their boosting power should be reduced in order for them to be less required for small groups.
I think a good nerf would be, to make them give +40% yield instead of +67.8%. going from -40.4% max to -26.7% max in time would make +36.4% which is basically it, so I suggest reducing the yield bonus from the laser mining optimization charge from -15% to -10%.
I think there’s nothing wrong with it that a mining boosting ship is required to make a mining fleet of any size larger than one effective.
If there is anything wrong with Orcas (and Rorquals) it’s that often an effective fleet consists of more than one boosting ship, because of their mining capabilities.
Nerf the yield, not their boosts.
What I mean is, they are more efficient at mining increase than a mining ship, as soon as you have 1.5 other players. WITH 0 MINING from the orca.
That is, whatever your base ships and your orca mining is, after 1.5 toons available, you NEED to use an orca or you are wasting yield. In effect that means that with 0 mining on the orca the boosting is beter than a third ship.
But they ARE mining ships. They are both. There is nothing to nerf with their yield, it’s already lower (25 m³/s) than a boosted procurer (35 m³/s) for like ? 30 times the cost ?
Yes, and I see nothing wrong with that!
It just means that the mining boosting ships are a welcome addition to any mining fleet that doesn’t have boosts already.
As long as the total yield of a mining fleet with booster goes up higher with the addition of a mining ship rather than a mining booster, the mining boosters are in a reasonable spot in my opinion. It means every ship has their purpose.
The moment we get issues is when someone brings a fleet of ‘mining boosters’ because they are better at mining than specialised mining ships. A fleet of Rorquals for example. Or a fleet of (semi afk) Orcas that abuse their reasonable mining yield in combination with huge ore holds.
Nerf their yield. Boosting is fine.
Porpoises, Orcas and Rorquals are mining support ships. With good defensive options, huge ore holds and mining boosts they are a force multiplier for any mining fleet and make up for the shortcomings of the specialised mining ships while increasing total yield.
If these support ships are used to effectively mine without the specialised mining ships, something is wrong with the ingame balance.
Those are not better at mining than the other ships. orcas are just WORSE at mining than any other barge or exhumer.
So they are not used for their mining yield - they are used because the other mining ships are bad when multiboxing and require a lot of moving of ore from your barges to the hauler (through the orca anyhow).
Them being used in that case is not a problem. Where’s the issue ? There is none.
What I’m saying is an issue, is that the orca is mandatory for fleet as soon as that fleet is more than 2 ppl, whatever the mining yield of the orca is . That’s imbalanced : not using an orca is always a bad choice, unless you have 2 or less ships in the fleet.
3 years of mining every day in the same ship. Whichever way you look at it (active laser time or actual gametime) that’s a lifespan a hell of a lot longer than 2-3 weeks.
And big multiboxed fleets of low effort near afk Orcas is a reason that their yield, although a bit lower than Procurer, is fine?
I think those semi afk Orca fleets are a clear indication that their yield is still too high. Nerf the yield and increase their boosts to compensate.
If people want to multibox, fine. But let them put in some more effort.
No they are not. You create that distinction out of nowhere. They have both mining and supporting bonus, so they are both mining AND supporting ships.
Stop making arbitrary definitions and you will stop seeing arbitrary issues.
unrelated. That’s definitely not an issue and not a reason to nerf the yield.
No it’s not. Since they are also mining ships, it’s fine if they have a specific niche. As long as that niche is not mandatory and comes at a cost. In that case, the cost is : they are worse than dedicated ships.
But they already do.
And the only fit that scales correctly without having to get carpal syndrom is the orca.
There is imbalance, when any other choice is worse. It’s the case only for big number of ships in HS, that is a very specific niche case that should not be considered as representing the whole situation.
So the only imbalance there is, is that a booster is better than any other choice as soon as your fleet is more than 2 ships, which is actually a very common case, much more common than multiboxed fleets of orcas sucking on ice.
Stop looking at bonuses as if it is the only thing defining the role of a ship, or you might think that a Vexor is a mining ship in addition to combat, and that T2 exploration frigates are intended for combat in addition to scanning.
Yes, so when a fleet of Orcas is better for a multiboxer than the dedicated ships due to any reasons (for examole carpal syndrom), something needs to be changed.
Nerf their yield.
Well that’s the only thing that allows to define roles.
You personal arbitrary opinion on the topic does not.
So yes, the vexor has bonus to mining drones giving it a mining role. Now since it’s a bad mining ship, it’s stupid to discuss it; unless you can find a fit that’s interesting.
Because ? Because nothing. So, no, there is no issue.
Just because multiboxers use ishtar to run havens does not mean that you should nerf the ishtar. There is an issue only when ishtar is straight better at running haven than the other choices (and here it’s the case).
Just because haulers use freighters does not mean you should nerf the freighters. They do what they are done for. It’s obvious that for people investing heavily in that activity they will invest in the best ratio gain/cost. And the cost in the case of multiboxing is the player activity.
You want to nerf the orcas ? Reduce their mining boost and give the barges and exhumers a correct fitting so they become a viable choice.
I don’t want to nerf Orcas, I want to make them a non-viable choice as a solo miner.
Even with a yield of 0, the Orca will always be useful in a mining fleet because of the boosts, large ore hold, fleet hangar and defences. Regardless of their personal yield, Orcas won’t ever be obsolete.
With an Orca mining yield that is too high, specialised mining ships will be obsolete.
While the Orca as solo miner has a slightly lower yield than a Procurer, a preferred choice for low effort mining is still the Orca, rather than a specialised mining ship. This is a clear indication that the mining yield of the Orca is currently too high and requires a nerf.
As I don’t want to nerf the Orca as a ship, just their yield, I think it would be fair to increase their supporting capabilities as compensation. Increased boosting rate, larger ore hold or fleet hangar would be nice options.
That is a nerf.
People using orcas in multiboixng fleets is NOT an issue.
People SHOULD be able to use them correctly in solo fleet. They ARE mining ships. Just because you don’t want, does not make them less of it.
No.
Source your facts or it’s just your hatred of multiboxing speaking.
remember that a multiboxing fleet is just ONE player.
No. If the orca is best low effort, low yield choice, then there is no issue with that. The only clear thing is your jealousy against multiboxing players.
You can’t dissociate them.
It’s not about compensation. It’s about making the game balanced. When the orcas are no more used, then let’s say procurers will be used for low cost low yield multiboxing fit. Then what ? nerf procurers ?
That argument is completely absurd. Something having an edge in a niche case is not an indication that this thing needs to be nerfed.
FYI CCP already nerfed multiboxing miners by making the ice respawn in possible different system. So now you can’t just wait 4H for the anom to respawn.
And also, no. multiboxing orca fleets are just not that many as you say. travel in backwaters and you’ll notice that with most orcas there is 1-2 other ship. Sometimes ventures are alone, sometimes other shipos. Most of the time, YES there is an orca even for a 2-man fleet, and THAT is a proof there is an issue. Not the multiboxing fleets that are focused on ice systems and sitting tethered the rest of the time.
Nothing wrong with a Porpoise or Orca in a two man fleet, their entire porpoise is to support mining ships.
Something is wrong when people fly these ships solo for mining, instead of dedicated mining ships.
Agreed, nothing wrong when people bring an Orca to a multiboxing fleet. Unless they prefer bringing a second Orca instead of a dedicated miner, then we do have a problem.
Multiboxing is not the issue, I do it myself. Low effort scalable multiboxing is the issue and the high yield of Orcas enables that type of gameplay.
AND mine.
Stop claiming that their purpoise is not to mine, that’s a plain lie.
No.
They ARE mining ships. Even the porpoise is one.
No we still don’t. You don’t like it, but it does not make a problem of it.
No, there is no reason for you to make arbitrary “this is an issue”.
Unless you remove the full yield of the orcas, then they will always be better at low effort low yield. So your neft is just completely absurd as it changes nothing to that fact.
All you are preaching for, is to nerf the people who are multiboxing orcas. All you are explaining, is your hatred towards them. NOT that there is an issue.
Well this discussion started because you wanted to nerf their mining boosts.
I can live with ‘no change’, but if you insist to change the Orca, hit their yield instead.
The boosts are fine, I have not yet heard an agrument why it is too high.
No matter how high you buff the boosts of these ships, it does not make other ships obsolete. Worst you can do with a boost rate that is too high, is to overflow the economy with more minerals. Even when the boost is triple the current rate, all mining ships have their own role and purpose.
Yet if the yield of these ships is too high, it invalidates a whole line of specialised ships, as it already does in the niche case of low effort mining.
But to stay on topic: if you survive long enough for your Skiff to pay the price difference with the yield difference, it’s worth the upgrade over the Procurer. And the Mackinaw is only worth it if you have the means to survive a gank (which means you’re docked when they arrive to gank you).
And I gave a reason for this.
No, there is no reason to reduce their yield.
I don’t insist on changing the orca, I insist that their boosting power is the thing that is imbalanced for the reasons that I gave.
You just took the occasion to spill your hatred of multiboxing orca fleets.
Yet that’s literally what I did in the first post. I gave a quantification of it, explained with numbers how it could be changed.
Yes if you buff ONE ship and by a lot, then this ship becomes OP. That’s what CCP did with the rorqual.
Yet the orca has lower yield than the other mining ships. Which means, only in specific niche cases it is better.
On the opposite, its boosting power makes it mandatory in most fleets, which is the indication that it’s imbalanced.
Why is that an indication that it’s imbalanced? What’s wrong when a boosting mining ship is mandatory in most mining fleets?
In a blops fleet you will also have a mandatory blops battleship if you want to drop on a covops cyno.
Also, the Orca is not mandatory, you could fill that role with a Porpoise or Rorqual as well if you want to make your fleet more effective. Just like you could fill the role of logistics with multiple types of ships in a PvP fleet - not mandatory, but it makes your fleet a lot more effective.
exactly, and it makes the blops imbalanced to other covops cynos ships. Which are non existent, so the issue is non existent too.
That’s the definition. Something is imbalanced when the choice of that thing is better than other choices in most of the cases, there is an imbalance in the value. “most” is emphasized because that’s actually what defines the imbalance. The more often this choice is plainly better than other, the more it is imbalanced.
Which is what I explained in the previous post, and why there was a 1.5 number. That you may not have read, which explains you don’t understand my post nor why I am talking about imbalance for the boost and not the yield.
No, rorqual are bad for boosting (too expensive) and porpoise is just worse than the orca in most cases (all cases in HS). Only good for porpoise is when moving, price, or size, are important. (so typically WS )
I agree that it would be good to make the three choices correct. Its not the case ATM.
I did read it and still don’t see why 1.5 is bad.
It just means that if you’re in a mining fleet of 3+, it would be most efficient to bring at least one Orca, Rorqual or Porpoise.
If the number were 1 we would have less choice: every efficient mining fleet of size larger than 1 should have a boosting ship.
If we would have a number of 9, then only mining fleets of 10+ would make a mining booster mandatory, but it will be mandatory nonetheless, according to your interpretation.
So I wonder: what makes the number 1.5 bad? Why should it be 2.5, or 8? I did read that 1.5 is too low in your opinion, but why is it too low?
The Rorqual may be limited for boosting due to the location restrictions and price, but it is better than an Orca for boosting. Higher boosts and free compression, what’s not to like?
The Porpoise is barely behind the Orca for boosting. I can fly both and compared the numbers once for max skills and implants in Pyfa. On my total yield (booster + mining ships) the extra yield of the Orca boosts exists, but is very minimal* and in my case not worth the extra risk on field. The Porpoise is also much easier to move, which means it’s a valid alternative and not to be ignored.
I recall that the higher boost bonus of the Orca stacks additively with other bonuses such as skills and implants, which means that in total, the difference in a boosting Orca is barely higher than a boosting Porpoise with the same max skills and implant. I’d run the numbers again for you if I were at home.